ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2013

October 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49S02-1302-CT-89
Civil tort. Holds Kesling’s fraud claim survives summary judgment but her deception claims do not. Advertising a car as “sporty car at a great value price” is not a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But stating that a car “would just need a tune-up,” in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that it had far more serious problems, does represent a fact and therefore may be the basis of a fraud claim when a seller gives it as a knowingly incomplete answer to a buyer’s specific question.

Wednesday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Danner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
53A04-1206-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Grants rehearing after originally dismissing appeal and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuchaes’ motion to continue; in certain evidentiary rulings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to amend the pleadings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to reopen; and in the award of attorneys fees.

Christopher Peelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1301-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felonies dealing in methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Jose A. Bonilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony child molestation conviction.

Kendrick Atkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1303-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

Marcus Anthony Johnson Revocable Trust and The Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals Division No. 1 v. Westchester Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1302-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Westchester Estate Homeowners Association and other appellees and the denial of summary judgment in favor of the trust and board of zoning appeals regarding a zoning variance. 

Lawrence Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction to serve the remainder of Harris’ sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT